OldeSpeed2's stats
- Review count28
- Helpfulness votes5
- First reviewMay 3, 2008
- Last reviewJune 20, 2011
- Featured reviews0
- Average rating4
Overall rating
2
/
5
Green in the Face
PostedJune 20, 2011
This Warner Brothers. movie groans with the strain of explaining who Green Lantern is, while also trying to sell the movie as a big, eye-popping summer entertainment. What gets sacrificed on the altar of this new franchise launch is any real sense of fun. In an overcalculated effort to cover all the bases, the movie is tonally all over the place. It grabs bits from Star Wars, The Mask, Top Gun and Superman, in a sort of superhero chop suey.
Four writers are credited to the screenplay, which unfolds as if the scenes were worked on in isolation chambers – The love story was forced, and unneeded as Blake Lively was horrible as was Hal's best friend in the movie. I come to expect more in my Super Hero movies, and this was as bad as both Fantastic Four movies.
No, I do not recommend this movie.
Share:
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
4
/
5
A Real Wallop
PostedMarch 26, 2011
The movie world is full of “reimaginings” — frequently told stories told again, previously made movies made again, all updated with a quick dusting of new music and effects. Well, “Sucker Punch” is an “imagining.” Directed and based on an original story by Zack Snyder (Reminds me of The Wizard Of Oz)— the filmmaker who previously has made two comic-book visualizations, a young-adult novel adaptation and a remake — it’s pretty much his vision, at last. And it’s pretty remarkable. Not sensible, perhaps. The story itself is a pulped fiction, a half-shredded assemblage of genre standbys — World War I dogfights and medieval dragons, gold-hearted whores and old dark homes for “the mentally insane.” But boy, does Snyder make it fun to watch.
The story seems to begin like a silent horror tale as — in wordless near-monochrome — we see the sad tale of Babydoll, an abused minor whose evil stepfather fast-tracks her for a lobotomy. Except then she wakes up. And it seems like the real story begins, as we’re told she’s an orphan deposited in a bordello, due to have her virginity sold. But Babydoll has a plan — distract the men with dances while other girls help her plan an escape. Oh, but every time Babydoll twirls, she slips into a fantasy — a violent, “Heavy Metal”-style adventure of her friends helping her slay monsters, fly fighter planes and generally save the world, all the while being advised by a wise Zen master.So, no, this is not a sensible story. It’s definitely not a movie for people expecting one.
But for pure filmmaking — characters taking up half the foreground in close-up while events unfold behind them, action speeding up or stopping on command, a soundtrack of classic rock remixed or redone into droning trances — it’s remarkable. Of course, some of what this style is put in service of is juvenile or, more accurately, adolescent. This is a film that preaches female empowerment but keeps its characters in miniskirts. It wants to have its cheesecake and eat it, too. Yet while lead Emily Browning barely goes beyond the sexy schoolgirl cliché, Abbie Cornish — far livelier here than in the recent “Limitless” — goes deeper as the older, wiser Sweetpea. Even Vanessa Hudgens, mostly in the background as Blondie, shows a toughness kept under wraps through all those high school musicals. Actually, a musical would be a great choice for Snyder. With his preference for grand emotion over cool logic, he’s closer to Busby Berkeley and Baz Luhrmann than he thinks.
(Being Snyder, it would have to be a zombie musical.) If there’s one real problem with this film, it’s that the very fans it has been made for are as familiar with Snyder’s inspirations as he is. Although there is supposedly a wow of a twist ending — that surprise knockout the title promises — any real fan will see it coming. But there is still far more to see here than in other, overstylized irony fests such as last year’s “Kick-Ass” and “Scott Pilgrim.”And real interest in seeing what Zack Snyder does in his next movie Superman. I give it a 8.5 out of 10.
(Being Snyder, it would have to be a zombie musical.) If there’s one real problem with this film, it’s that the very fans it has been made for are as familiar with Snyder’s inspirations as he is. Although there is supposedly a wow of a twist ending — that surprise knockout the title promises — any real fan will see it coming. But there is still far more to see here than in other, overstylized irony fests such as last year’s “Kick-Ass” and “Scott Pilgrim.”And real interest in seeing what Zack Snyder does in his next movie Superman. I give it a 8.5 out of 10.
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
4
/
5
A Real Wallop
PostedMarch 26, 2011
The movie world is full of “reimaginings” — frequently told stories told again, previously made movies made again, all updated with a quick dusting of new music and effects. Well, “Sucker Punch” is an “imagining.” Directed and based on an original story by Zack Snyder (Reminds me of The Wizard Of Oz)— the filmmaker who previously has made two comic-book visualizations, a young-adult novel adaptation and a remake — it’s pretty much his vision, at last. And it’s pretty remarkable. Not sensible, perhaps.
The story itself is a pulped fiction, a half-shredded assemblage of genre standbys — World War I dogfights and medieval dragons, gold-hearted whores and old dark homes for “the mentally insane.” But boy, does Snyder make it fun to watch.The story seems to begin like a silent horror tale as — in wordless near-monochrome — we see the sad tale of Babydoll, an abused minor whose evil stepfather fast-tracks her for a lobotomy. Except then she wakes up. And it seems like the real story begins, as we’re told she’s an orphan deposited in a bordello, due to have her virginity sold. But Babydoll has a plan — distract the men with dances while other girls help her plan an escape. Oh, but every time Babydoll twirls, she slips into a fantasy — a violent, “Heavy Metal”-style adventure of her friends helping her slay monsters, fly fighter planes and generally save the world, all the while being advised by a wise Zen master.So, no, this is not a sensible story. It’s definitely not a movie for people expecting one.
But for pure filmmaking — characters taking up half the foreground in close-up while events unfold behind them, action speeding up or stopping on command, a soundtrack of classic rock remixed or redone into droning trances — it’s remarkable. Of course, some of what this style is put in service of is juvenile or, more accurately, adolescent. This is a film that preaches female empowerment but keeps its characters in miniskirts. It wants to have its cheesecake and eat it, too. Yet while lead Emily Browning barely goes beyond the sexy schoolgirl cliché, Abbie Cornish — far livelier here than in the recent “Limitless” — goes deeper as the older, wiser Sweetpea. Even Vanessa Hudgens, mostly in the background as Blondie, shows a toughness kept under wraps through all those high school musicals. Actually, a musical would be a great choice for Snyder. With his preference for grand emotion over cool logic, he’s closer to Busby Berkeley and Baz Luhrmann than he thinks.
(Being Snyder, it would have to be a zombie musical.) If there’s one real problem with this film, it’s that the very fans it has been made for are as familiar with Snyder’s inspirations as he is. Although there is supposedly a wow of a twist ending — that surprise knockout the title promises — any real fan will see it coming. But there is still far more to see here than in other, overstylized irony fests such as last year’s “Kick-Ass” and “Scott Pilgrim.”And I have a real interest in seeing what Zack Snyder does with Superman. I give it a 8.5 out of 10.
(Being Snyder, it would have to be a zombie musical.) If there’s one real problem with this film, it’s that the very fans it has been made for are as familiar with Snyder’s inspirations as he is. Although there is supposedly a wow of a twist ending — that surprise knockout the title promises — any real fan will see it coming. But there is still far more to see here than in other, overstylized irony fests such as last year’s “Kick-Ass” and “Scott Pilgrim.”And I have a real interest in seeing what Zack Snyder does with Superman. I give it a 8.5 out of 10.
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
+1point
1of 1voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
1
/
5
2011 Razzie award winner*
PostedFebruary 27, 2011
Martin Lawrence's fat suit isn't the only thing getting threadbare in the Big Momma franchise.
Big Momma -- the undercover guise-of-choice for FBI agent Malcolm (Lawrence) -- is no longer in "da house." Out of his/her culturally stereotypical element, there's only so much the writers can think of to do with a morbidly obese sight gag. Bust a table while busting a move, pose nude for an art class (with an artfully placed towel to hide his/her junk), etc.
The solution: Big Mommas: Like Father, Like Son (get it? It's plural now) sets up shop in a girls' High School for the Arts, and steals riffs from the likes of Mean Girls, The House Bunny, White Chicks and High School Musical. It doesn't say much for the comic energy of a movie when the closest thing to a funny scene (debatable) is two heavy people playing Twister. And ham-fisted director John Whitesell -- whose race-comedy debacles date back to Malibu's Most Wanted -- can't even pull that off with any aplomb.
Unless he really needs the money, the best thing Martin Lawrence can do at this point is to sell his Big Momma suit to Tyler Perry or Eddie Murphy. God help us, one or both of them are probably warming up for another fat-fest at this very moment.
No, I do not recommend this movie.
Share:
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
5
/
5
Please bring on Tron 3!
PostedDecember 26, 2010
Watching Tron: Legacy is like witnessing a thermonuclear explosion from inside the mushroom cloud—white hot, dazzlingly intense and indescribably overpowering. Pure, unblemished spectacle, Tron: Legacy is cinematic escapism at its most thrilling and satisfying—pop art unlike any you’ve ever seen before.
We came to see a geography constructed of glossy contours, geometric shapes and translucent textures. We came to see vehicles that race on ribbons of light and end their lives in splashes of orange magma. We came to see muscular bodies poured into sexy, jet-black, self-illuminating foam-latex bodysuits.
It is a world of unbounded dimensions, choreographed so that we are never at a loss for geography or spatial depth. With the unfortunate exception of a less-than-successful performance-capture experiment to breathe life into a younger, digital version of Jeff Bridges, the effects are better than anything on screen this year.
As if arriving from an alternate sonic universe, the cutting-edge score, supplied by the French electronic dance duo Daft Punk, is a flawless complement to the visuals, music that throbs in your gut and vibrates in your bones.
Bridges is a powerful Obi Wan presence. While he still retains his childlike wonder and SoCal affectations, Flynn has been humbled by time and isolation, adopting a supremely Zen-like posture. The Dude abides on The Grid. His reunion with his son is genuinely touching, the lynchpin moment in a young man’s life that shifts him from inaction to action, from purposelessness to destiny.
In many ways, theirs is not the only father/son relationship in the film, as Flynn’s relationship with Clu is suffused with plenty of its own “sins of the father” dynamics. But it is Wilde who is perhaps the most affecting, a character of innocence, enthusiasm and infectious curiosity who uses her eyes to recite pages of untranscribed text. It’s a dimensionality that, to be honest, isn’t even called for by the straightforward script, but which she nonetheless injects.
Commercials director Joseph Kosinski (making his feature debut) has created a world at once intimately recognizable yet breathtakingly new, a universe every bit as immersive as Avatar and one of the very few films to make the most of both the IMAX and 3D technologies (the first 20 or so minutes of the film are in 2D, shifting to 3D only when Sam finds himself in the digital realm, a nice nod to The Wizard of Oz).
It’s as if we’re seeing this incandescently imaginative, gloriously self-indulgent, fetishistic world for the very first time, and it is dumbfoundingly spectacular.
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
3
/
5
Hoodwinked
PostedNovember 22, 2010
This movie reportedly cost over $150 million dollars but I’m at a loss as to what that could have been spent on. There’s almost no soundtrack to speak of, the cinematography is practically non-existent, just various shades of grey, but the worst part is Yates clearly doesn’t like magic as this movie has none. Yates’ idea of Wizarding fights is showing dark puffs of smoke all over the place.
The spell work is non-existent just people flicking their arms and things exploding – usually little sparks and glass breaking. Again, I ask, where’s the magic? I want to go back to the first two movies where we saw jets of light and have spells show different effects beyond someone just falling down as if punched. Heck even in the beginning when Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) kills someone we barely see the sickly green death curse. Did I mention this movie cost over $150 MILLION?? Where was that money spent? Craft services?
I have grave concerns about the final battle in Part Two, Yates doesn’t care about magic, wizard duels, clearly doesn’t like using SFX, so how is he going to have a 1 1/2 hour final magical battle?
The one thing I’m thankful for is they ran out of time on post converting this movie to 3D. It would have been absolutely horrible, there is NOTHING, not one scene or moment in that would have looked good or even been worth watching in 3D. Unless you think watching bland, desolate landscapes in 3D would have been awesome.
The Deathly Hallows is a very big and dense book, where not much happens during the first half of the book, so the decision to split this movie in two was an interesting one. I’m actually glad they cut most of the stuff regarding Dumbledore’s book in the movie, but it felt weird because they show Gellert Grindelwald taking the Elder Wand but the movie never explains the significance of that moment or his connection to Dumbledore or even who this character is.
Since the first part was 2 1/2 hours they clearly had time to spend 10 minutes showing the relationship between young Dumbledore and young Grindelwald. So yes, I just contradicted myself, by leaving out the Dumbledore stuff in the movie, it shows how important it actually was to the overall story.
This is my main problem with Yates and the last three HP movies, they introduce characters and concepts that have major story implications but never follow through or bother to explain so it always feels like you have to have read the books to really understand the significance of these moments. At the end when nothing is followed through on it ends up feeling like half hearted fan service.
For example they bring Kreacher back, so as a fan of the books, I couldn’t wait for them to do his story and show how Voldemort lost his first Horcruex and watch his complete character transformation. They finally introduce Bill Weasley and he’s on screen for less than 30 seconds just to mention he got into a fight with Greyback – again, no background or anything (hopefully we’ll get more in part two, but somehow I doubt it).
The Burrow was burned down in the last movie, now it’s back and no explanation of how this happened. When Ron returns they don’t bother to explain that using Voldemort’s name brings snatchers to your door, etc.
Another example of this and major failing is the idea that Yates had TWO very long movies to work with (HBP and DH1), but NEVER bothers to properly explain how Voldemort chose his Horcruex’s and the significance to Wizarding History each one contains. It’s NEVER mentioned, they NEVER once act like they KNOW what the Horcruex’s are LIKELY to be.
Would it have killed him to have one scene where we find out that Voldemort used the last known objects of the founders of the school as the containers of his soul bits. These are not some random trinkets he picked up at a thrift store.
It goes to one of Voldemort’s central character traits and it shows that the trio actually has some idea of what they are at least looking for. Yate’s clearly doesn’t care about what they are hunting, only that they are searching for these objects.
I’m going to close now because the longer this review goes, the more and more I hate the film.
No, I do not recommend this movie.
Share:
+1point
1of 1voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
4
/
5
This time in eye-popping 3D!
PostedSeptember 10, 2010
I didn't expect to be writing this, but Resident Evil: Afterlife might be my favorite of the series so far. Sure the plot is weak and the characters are thinly written, but each individual movie has never really been about that. It's just another continuation of one large story that will probably come to an end in the next installment.
Aside from being easy on the eyes, Milla Jovovich (who somehow looks better than ever), still makes for a compelling action hero and Ali Larter sure looks good standing next to her. The other characters here, including Prison Break's Wentworth Miller as Chris Redfield, aren't given that much to do, but they also don't get on your nerves. I did appreciate the fact that they cut out all of the needless trying too hard to be funny dialogue of the past. You know, the scenes involving Mike Epps. Wesker made for a decent villain and the big dude carrying the axe, put the silly looking Nemesis creature from Apocalypse to shame. Paul W.S. Anderson returns after two sequels and the visual quality is a step up. While he's far from being a great director, his good attributes show up on screen.
As for a few minor negatives. Like I said before, the story just links the 3rd movie to the future 5th, but there is still enough going on to hold your interest. Not only did the final fight scene borrow too heavily from The Matrix, but all those people emerging in those white outfits reminded me of The Island as well. Now as far as the slow motion goes, it looked good in 3-D, but was overused.
The bottom line is that if you're a fan of the movie series you've come to the right place and should know what to expect. You have two attractive women, good CGI, exciting fight scenes complete with rated R violence (yay!), with no shortness of B movie vibe.
The IMAX 3-D experience was worth the extra $4, even though most of the scenes, other than when stuff was flying trough the air, looked rather flat. Make sure you stay after the credit role! You're in for a treat.
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
5
/
5
Great Film
PostedSeptember 3, 2010
Justin Long and Drew Barrymore bring to screen a very realistic, raunchy and laugh-out-loud funny film about long-distance dating. The realistic chemistry obviously comes from the fact that Long and Barrymore are/were an actual couple. Yes, the film has issues like predictability and cheesiness at times but the overall feeling was enjoyment.
If you have ever been in a long distance relationship, you will easily be able to relate to what is happening in this movie. The movie does touch on realistic subject matters that people deal with every day. Long (no pun intended) distance relationships are tough and sometimes you would think time apart would be a good thing but not months upon months.
Long and Barrymore really make their characters shine and definitely keep a sense of realism. You see these characters as regular people in love. When they laugh, it feels real. When they cry, I want to cry with them. Maybe being a real life couple helped this realism out because it definitely translated well to screen.
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
5
/
5
A dream within a dream
PostedJuly 18, 2010
Modern audiences can thank the increasingly complex narrative structures of television shows like 24 and Lost for a starter manual for absorbing this much conceptual content in only 148 minutes. We can also thank movies like The Matrix and Frequency for helping prepare us for this kind of a narrative within a narrative.
There are plenty of reasons to like Inception, whether you found it obvious or impenetrable. One big one: I haven’t seen a movie in forever where I boggled “how did they DO that?” especially not one where I did it more than once. Remember that feeling? Especially back in the nascent CGI days where less was more? Joseph Gordon-Leavitt is in a number of these scenes. I really appreciated that even in the dream universe, you still have to obey the laws of physics. You can’t just walk on water or blow things up with your mind, you have to plug the leak with a cork and push the button to make the thing work. And oh my goodness, the stunts, the wonderful stunts!
The intimate nature of the work that this team does is echoed by how close we all feel being drawn in to their worlds – when everyone is unplugged again, you feel a little thrown into the awkward cold like a tentative greeting of a long-ago acquaintance. You’ll wish you could dream as lucidly as this, but be grateful here you have Nolan as your tour guide.
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.
Overall rating
3
/
5
The Jeffrey
PostedJune 6, 2010
Really, there's not much more to the movie than that eternal trinity, as the men stumble from one outrageous party to another. But aside from the useless gross-out scenes, Stoller and a perfectly tuned Brand get every detail right, including the seductive egomania of celebrities and the predatory fawning of their handlers.
This is very much Brand's movie, with Hill playing a surprisingly subdued straight man. Still, the strong supporting cast - including Rose Byrne and Elisabeth Moss as the guys' girlfriends - easily holds its own.
Yes, I recommend this movie.
Share:
0points
0of 0voted this as helpful.